The High Court found that Dublin City Council’s proposed Strand Road cycleway could not proceed on the basis of its existing environmental screening. The court held that both an environmental impact assessment and an appropriate assessment were required, and that the project would have to go through the planning process if it proceeded.
Mr Justice Meenan delivered judgment on 30 July 2021 in a judicial review brought by Peter Carvill and Mannix Flynn. They sought to quash the Council’s decision to proceed with the cycleway trial and challenge its compliance with environmental and planning law.
The proposed scheme would create a two-way separated cycle track between Sean Moore Road and Merrion Gates, remove Strand Road’s northbound traffic lane and redirect traffic onto other roads. The judgment cited traffic modelling that predicted increases of up to 63% on some local roads and a 114% increase on Merrion Road. The Council’s screening reports said traffic effects would be temporary and unlikely to be significant.
The Council described the scheme as a six-month trial. But the judge found that it was due to be reviewed after five months, with a recommendation on whether to continue or remove it. The Council had also said that an unsuccessful trial would be removed. The court concluded that the scheme was reviewable, rather than necessarily ending after six months, and therefore was not temporary.
That distinction undermined the environmental screening. The judge found that the EIA screening relied on the incorrect assumption that the scheme was temporary and seriously underestimated the effects of displaced traffic. He also found that the appropriate-assessment screening for nearby protected habitats relied on the scheme’s supposed temporary nature, which fatally undermined its credibility.
The court rejected other arguments made by the applicants. It found no identified legal basis requiring public participation in either screening process, rejected the challenge to the timing of the EIA screening, and held that the pleaded conflict-of-interest claim lacked sufficient detail.
The applicants succeeded in their application. The judge said the Council would have to address and comply with the EIA and Habitats Directive requirements if the cycleway proceeded. Because an assessment was required, the Council could not rely on the exemptions it had cited to avoid the planning process. The court did not make final orders in this judgment; it listed the matter for 9 August 2021 to determine the form of the order and any consequential orders.